MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059147389 · doi:10.3115/1609067.1609102

Cube summing, approximate inference with non-local features, and dynamic programming without semirings

2009· article· en· W2059147389 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kevin Gimpel, Noah A. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada LimitedNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSemiringCube (algebra)ResidualIndependence (probability theory)Dynamic programmingComputationData cubePruningAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce cube summing, a technique that permits dynamic programming algorithms for summing over structures (like the forward and inside algorithms) to be extended with non-local features that violate the classical structural independence assumptions. It is inspired by cube pruning (Chiang, 2007; Huang and Chiang, 2007) in its computation of non-local features dynamically using scored k-best lists, but also maintains additional residual quantities used in calculating approximate marginals. When restricted to local features, cube summing reduces to a novel semiring (k-best+residual) that generalizes many of the semirings of Goodman (1999). When non-local features are included, cube summing does not reduce to any semiring, but is compatible with generic techniques for solving dynamic programming equations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207